I have question for you. Will you support prosecution when the evidence from the Mueller Investigation proves Donald Trump commited crimes?

Sure I will, as long as it true, just and provable...

There certainly is plenty of evidence of collusion and obstruction of justice. It jus so happens it points more toward the democrats and the Clinton Campaign regarding the 2016 election Russian connection.

Will you support prosecution of Hillary Clinton when the evidence proves it ??

So I have question for you. Will you support prosecution when the evidence proves she violated the law?

Evidence is evidence.........as long as it's real & true. So far your side has scored a big fat zero in producing any real evidence. You're really good at whipping up outrage against Hillary, but not so good at finding true facts to back it up. It's a mob mentality that should embarrass normal people.

Be Patient and give the new Sheriff (DOJ) an opportunity to do its job.

It may surprise you and others on this board what happens when lady justice with the blind fold on holding a fair scale without someone placing their thumb on it. I pray that justice prevail.

Wrong. I asked why nothing has been found against Hillary after countless investigations since 1992. The DOJ had nothing to do with many of them. So again, why is it that the right can't find anything? I know why, but do you? Lol

So I have question for you. Will you support prosecution when the evidence proves she violated the law?

Evidence is evidence.........as long as it's real & true. So far your side has scored a big fat zero in producing any real evidence. You're really good at whipping up outrage against Hillary, but not so good at finding true facts to back it up. It's a mob mentality that should embarrass normal people.

Scandals: Among the many troubling revelations to have emerged regarding the FBI these days, one of the worst is finding out that an avowed Trump-hater softened language in a memo to exonerate Hillary Clinton.

Let's rewind the tape a bit. Until August 31, 2016, with the presidential election in full swing, former FBI director James Comey gave the impression that he hadn't arrived at his decision to let Clinton off the hook until after he had all the facts.

But in late August we learned that, in fact, Comey and his team began drafting his get-out-of-jail-free statement for Clinton in April — right around the time President Obama publicly declared Clinton innocent of any crimes, and well before the FBI had interviewed dozens of key witnesses, including Clinton herself.

Then, in early November, we learned that an early draft of that memo had accused Clinton of being "grossly negligent" in handling classified material because she used an unsecured private email server while Secretary of State.

At some point during the editing process of that memo, "grossly negligent" became "extremely careless," which is how Comey put it in the final version.

The change was monumental. The criminal statute regarding mishandling classified material specifically cites "gross negligence" as a violation of the law, even if there is no intent involved. Had that language remained, Comey's claim that "no reasonable prosecutor" would take the Clinton email case would have been laughable.

So changing the language was obviously meant to clear the path for letting Clinton off the hook, whatever the facts might be.

This week, the other shoe in the memo story dropped, when it was reported that Peter Strzok had made that particular edit.

Strzok, for those who don't know, had been kicked off the Trump/Russia investigation this summer — a fact we also only learned about in the past few days — after it turned out that he'd been sending anti-Trump, pro-Hillary texts to an FBI colleague.

So the key person who made a material change in a memo exonerating Clinton was a big Clinton supporter and a Trump hater.

On top of this, we only recently learned that officials at the FBI were in a frenzy after learning of Bill Clinton's off-the-books tarmac meeting with then Attorney General Loretta Lynch on June 27, 2016.

But the FBI wasn't interested in finding out what was said at that highly suspicious and inappropriate confab. Nope. They wanted to know who leaked the information.

"These new FBI documents show the FBI was more concerned about a whistleblower who told the truth about the infamous Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting than the scandalous meeting itself," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which uncovered the memos, adding that they "show the FBI worked to make sure no more details of the meeting would be revealed to the American people."

Now, contrast all this with the way the FBI has been pursuing — since July 2016 — claims made in the Clinton-campaign-DNC-financed "dossier" supposedly showing that Trump colluded with Russian meddling in the presidential election.

Before and after the election, the FBI has been ferociously investigating this, determined to find any shred of evidence that might support the dossier, and yet has come up empty. Now, under Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the entire focus seems to have shifted from providing any evidence of collusion to catching anyone in Trump's circle who committed unrelated crimes.

We're not conspiracy mongers here. But it's hard to see this as anything other than an effort by the Deep State first to protect Hillary's election chances at all costs, and then, when that failed, to ruin Trump's presidency — at all costs.

As Investigations Of Misconduct Mount, Can Hillary Clinton Avoid Jail?

PanJ, they do not understand logic and they are the kings of double standards.Every day they come here crying like babies about alleged bias from FBI investigators.Well guess what? There were 9 separate Congressional investigations of Hillaryled by the most biased Republican members of Congress.

And despite their heavy duty bias, they could never once prove any charges against Hillary. If you could process information logically, you should understand that even when investigators are biased, they still need evidence to support and prove charges.

No doubt, Democrats, who with the leftist media allies have ginned up bogus charges of Russian collusion against Donald Trump, would like the Clinton investigations to go away.

But they won't. In recent weeks, new developments have made it shockingly clear that questions about Clinton's possibly criminal conduct are growing. All of these have come in the last month:

A question for you jim.......your side has been investigating Hillary since at least 1992, so why has every investigation been a failure? Are Republicans just incompetent, or could it be they're doing it for the red meat it provides to their very gullible followers? Lol

That's a question for the DOJ. In the past it would appear Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch took care of it and provided her with the HQ Special treatment.

There is a new Sheriff in town now that just may take a closer honest look at her behavior. Only time will tell.

So I have question for you. Will you support prosecution when the evidence proves she violated the law?